forum

All Mathematicians Please come to this thread

posted
Total Posts
106
Topic Starter
B1rd
There is a very complicated mathematical and philosophical problem that needs to be solved.

That is, does 4-5*, as in the context of the title for a multiplayer lobby mean 4.0-5.0*, or 4.0-5.99*, or something else entirely?

This needs to be solved once and for all. Let the debate begin.
Yuudachi-kun
4.00 to 5.99. because the title 4*-5* means all 4* maps and all 5* maps.

This issue can be solved by not having a shitty fucking multi name and saying 4.00 to 5.00* or 4.00 to 5.25 or something.
-Makishima S-
4.00-5.00
DeathHydra
Lol I don't think you should make a topic about this but oh well...

I will assume it's a 4.00-5.99 if the room title is like "4 stars and 5 stars". But if "4 to 5 stars" I will assume that it's a 4.00-5.00.
Believe it or not, I'm quite good with mathematics
Nabel_old_1
3.50-5.50
TheRealNick24
3.51-5.49
Endaris
4.0-5.0 with a margin of tolerance of like 0.25. For some psychological reason people will always pick closer to the higher number because they don't want to look like having small balls or something, i don't know. That's why it effectively plays out like 4.1-5.5*.
I don't know. Just use decimals.

You don't make sense, Khelly, it would be 3.01 to 5.99 if anything.
Yuudachi-kun

Endaris wrote:

4.0-5.0 with a margin of tolerance of like 0.25. For some psychological reason people will always pick closer to the higher number because they don't want to look like having small balls or something, i don't know. That's why it effectively plays out like 4.1-5.5*.
I don't know. Just use decimals.

You don't make sense, Khelly, it would be 3.01 to 5.99 if anything.
Why would 4* mean 3.01 and not 4.00+? That doesn't make sense. Any map 3.99 or below does NOT have 4 stars.
Topic Starter
B1rd

Endaris wrote:

4.0-5.0 with a margin of tolerance of like 0.25. For some psychological reason people will always pick closer to the higher number because they don't want to look like having small balls or something, i don't know. That's why it effectively plays out like 4.1-5.5*.
I don't know. Just use decimals.

You don't make sense, Khelly, it would be 3.01 to 5.99 if anything.
There can be no margin of tolerance. Even if you allow 0.1 star more it just becomes a slippery slope.
Deva

[Taiga] wrote:

4.00-5.00
Oh god finally some fucking common sense

OT:

HK_ wrote:

it means 4.00000000000000000000000000000000...1-4.99999999999999999999999999999999999...*
Saphirshroom

Khelly wrote:

Endaris wrote:

4.0-5.0 with a margin of tolerance of like 0.25. For some psychological reason people will always pick closer to the higher number because they don't want to look like having small balls or something, i don't know. That's why it effectively plays out like 4.1-5.5*.
I don't know. Just use decimals.

You don't make sense, Khelly, it would be 3.01 to 5.99 if anything.
Why would 4* mean 3.01 and not 4.00+? That doesn't make sense. Any map 3.99 or below does NOT have 4 stars.
This
Endaris

B1rd wrote:

There can be no margin of tolerance. Even if you allow 0.1 star more it just becomes a slippery slope.
Oh, so this is a full meme thread.
Reason:
Because 4-5= -1
This implies that the range of stars is |-1|=1
The only set of 1 that has both 4 and 5 in it is [4;5]

@Khelly: So you are some fucking compiler that is too stupid to round numbers when converting to integer. gg
Yuudachi-kun

Endaris wrote:

@Khelly: So you are some fucking compiler that is too stupid to round numbers when converting to integer. gg
I don't even get what you're trying to say.
Deva
lol rip
N0thingSpecial
I don't think maths even play a role in this topic lol since we're not using proper mathematical annotations in the first place
Yuudachi-kun

N0thingSpecial wrote:

I don't think maths even play a role in this topic lol since we're not using proper mathematical annotations in the first place
Here I can do non-notation too

4* maps --> All maps that have at least 4 stars and no more than 4.99
5* maps --> All maps that have at least 5 stars and no more than 5.99

4*-5* maps -> 4.00 to 5.99

"4-5" stars as a multi title

Ambiguous since the person reading might assume 4.00 to 5.00 or all 4 star and all 5 star maps.

Solution:

USE BETTER MULTI LOBBY TITLES YOU FUCKS
DeathHydra
Suddenly this topic is popular. I guess everyone is a mathematician
Saphirshroom

Endaris wrote:

@Khelly: So you are some fucking compiler that is too stupid to round numbers when converting to integer. gg
Every single compiler of every relevant programming language ever truncates when casting floating point to integers and doesn't round. (Also, this is the exact reason why I too think that 4-5* means 4.0 to 5.99.)
Khelly is right.
Endaris
Or they use the definition by the difficulty-grouping and think it is 3.5-5.5
N0thingSpecial
Wait let me ask a friend who is actually studying maths as a degree
Yuudachi-kun

Endaris wrote:

Or they use the definition by the difficulty-grouping and think it is 3.5-5.5

I never liked that rounding system to begin with. As an example, can you agree that I have a 7 star fc because of my #1 play because it's 6.8*? I don't.
-Makishima S-
4*-5* maps -> 4.00 to 4.99
You don't exclude last number in stack. Same as you cannot exclude first number from it.

[4* - 5*] = {4.00, 4.01, 4.02, ... , 4.98, 4.99, 5.00}
Yuudachi-kun

[Taiga] wrote:

4*-5* maps -> 4.00 to 4.99
You don't exclude last number in stack. Same as you cannot exclude first number from it.

[4* - 5* ] = {4.00, 4.01, 4.02, ... , 4.98, 4.99, 5.00}
I mistyped there 5.99 as 4.99 then I changed it to 5.00 because you confused me.
Sayorie


Are we done?
KanoSet

B1rd wrote:

There is a very complicated mathematical and philosophical problem that needs to be solved.
xd
from a philosophical view it's 3.5 - 5.5 because that what 4* and 5* taps have
Endaris

Arthraxium wrote:



Are we done?
Consider calculating the arithmetic mean of 4 and 5 as the sup and inf of our set
Then take the integral from 4 to 5 over the sinus of our arithmetic mean multiplied with pi.
DeathHydra

Arthraxium wrote:



Are we done?
Wow.

The image means 4.00-5.99 if anybody doesn't know
Deva
[iimx->4+f(x), limx->5-f(x)] :/
Dont laugh, at least i tried
Sayorie
To clarify, "4*-5*" can be really misleading, because there are two meanings which can be interpreted behind this:


Which means all the beatmaps between 4.0-5.0 star rating

or


Which means the set of all the 4-star beatmaps (beatmaps with 4 as the leading integer), plus all the 5-star beatmaps.

So the solution is to tell those MP basturds to clarify what they mean with the title.
DeathHydra
Or just make a room and don't rotate host. Therefore the title will always be right for you.
Sayorie
I don't multi, so I'm all gud.
Yuudachi-kun

Arthraxium wrote:

I don't multi, so I'm all gud.
Deva

Arthraxium wrote:

I don't multi, so I'm all gud.
Good idea. I will follow your example.
-Makishima S-
CE + dont buy supporter = perfect excuse to not go into multi
chainpullz

B1rd wrote:

There is a very complicated mathematical and philosophical problem that needs to be solved.

That is, does 4-5*, as in the context of the title for a multiplayer lobby mean 4.0-5.0*, or 4.0-5.99*, or something else entirely?

This needs to be solved once and for all. Let the debate begin.
4-5 typically translates to [4,5] \in \R unless you say "4-5 exclusive" in which case it translates to (4,5). So no, anything >5 would not be included.
TMiracle

Arthraxium wrote:


.
If only there was a way to put this equation in the lobby name.
Jellyfish McGub
it actually means 5-6

(but what is 5-6??)
GhostFrog

Arthraxium wrote:



Are we done?
We are most certainly not done. You haven't even defined f(x)! As near as I can tell, you intend for f(x) to be a many-valued function that takes on as values all maps with star ratings equal to the argument. From there, we have to define some sort of ordering on the set of maps in order to make sense of the interval. I guess the obvious choice is to consider all maps of the same star rating to be members of an equivalence class and then using the standard total order on real numbers over the star rating associated with each equivalence class.

However, I'm not entirely sure that this is what you meant because it raises some questions about your choice of notation. For one thing, I wonder why you would have chosen to use f(x) as boundaries of your interval, rather than choosing an interval for x and then indicating that we were accepting all f(x) for all x in that interval. It also makes me wonder why you used the limits, when you could, assuming I had correctly interpreted your notation, just as easily have chosen f(4) to be the lower limit and f(6) to be the upper limit. Your choice to use limits makes me think there must be some sort of discontinuity at x=4 and x=6 and it's not clear to me what would cause that to happen. Even more baffling is your choice to use one-sided limits. I honestly have no idea what quantity you could have had in mind that would have different limits from the left and the right that would make sense in the context in which you used them.

When we've sorted all of that out, we can get back to the very important argument taking place in this thread over trivial details.
Amianki
wtf
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply